The diff adds three things: a DECISIONS.md entry, a test assertion, and a small helper in verify.ts that, when a settlement's extra context (a seat's objection) is in view, appends a note to the run account recording the reason a record stood. This adds display of disagreement and reasoning rather than removing any check — it makes the ledger's account carry what previously sat only in judgments.yaml, which is directly in the spirit of §3.14/§3.15 (disagreement not published silently) and weakens nothing in §3.15. No AGENTS.md change, no content/ records, no citations added (verification found none), no supplied-in-confidence material. The DECISIONS entry is stamped 'Supervised-by: founder (direction in session, 2026-09-21)', which the constitution explicitly permits as the operating record, and it matches the format of adjacent entries; nothing in the diff contradicts it. The notes are gated on gates.extraContext so plain verify runs are unchanged, a narrow and reversible scope.

The change improves inspectability by adding the judging model’s stated reason to verification notes whenever a record stands in an answer round with an objection in view. The added test specifically checks that the promoted evidence-anchored claim’s account includes both its ID and the reason it stood, reducing the risk that disagreement is hidden behind a bare promotion notice. The decision-log entry records the rationale and stamps the stated founder supervision with date and channel. No citations, confidential material, constitutional edits, or weakened checks are introduced.

The change enhances epistemic transparency by recording the model's rationale in the verification account notes whenever a record stands against an objection during settlement passes with extra context. The changes are confined to pipeline verification logic, domain tests, and an accompanying DECISIONS entry supervised by the founder. No constitutional rules in AGENTS.md are altered or weakened, and no citations or unratified claims are introduced.

The diff only touches docs/DECISIONS.md, a test, and verify.ts: when settlement extraContext (a seat objection) is in view, a standing record now appends the reader's reason into account notes beside that context; plain verify without extraContext is unchanged. No AGENTS.md edit, no citations/sources/locators added, no confidence material, and no loosening of §3.15 checks—this strengthens inspectability of why a claim stood. The test asserts the reason string appears in verification.md, matching the decisions entry. Founder-supervised direction is recorded in DECISIONS.md.

The diff is a small transparency improvement to the verify pipeline: when an objection is in view and a record stands, the account now carries the record's reason beside that objection, plus a test pinning the behavior and a dated decisions entry. It edits no constitution file, adds no citations or locators (verification confirms none), touches no confidence material, and carries no run records to judge. Nothing in the change loosens or dodges any §3.15 check — it only appends informative notes, strengthening rather than weakening the displayed disagreement the constitution requires ('disagreement does not publish silently'). The decisions entry records the founder's direction with date and channel, which §3.15 permits for the operating record. My only residual note is minor: the note text 'stood — the reader: ...' labels a model judge's verdict reason as 'the reader's' reason, which is slightly loose wording in an account note, but it does not misattribute who performed what action in any provenance-bearing record and does not rise to violation.